Optical comparison of the 8X42 NL Pure to the 8.5X42 EL SV (4 Viewers)

[Elpha8888]

I already liked the 12x50 Ultravid so I think it’s a safe bet, but I’m still interested in some others as well that I’d like to try, and the SLC, Meopta and Vortex are among them.
One thing with the EL, the only thing that caused any concern was with views closer than 100 yards or somewhere thereabouts. Everything else was great and it had my interest right up until it made my head swim!

I had that swim sensation when I first looked through a Monarch HG, my eyes seem to have adapted over the years and I'm able to handle most glass. Alignment causes me the most issues.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Interesting to see what 12x50 you go with, I found the ELs easy to get on with and the same with the NLs.
I would like to try the Razor UHD 12x50.
With my 12x42 NL I do a lot of astronomy and never wish for 50mm.

Compare the Canon 12x36 IS III sometime with your NL 12x42 on astronomy. Even with the smaller aperture, they will go deeper into the night sky than your 12x42 NL. The Canon 12x36 IS III gives me the best view of the moon I have ever seen through hand held binoculars. It is remarkable how many craters you can see with the IS on.

"Focus ‘snap’ is probably the most absolute I’ve ever experienced in a binocular – optical quality is supreme (this is Canon, after all, makers of some of the finest camera lenses and the objectives for Takahashi telescopes)."

"Compared to a premium pair of 12x50 birding bino’s these are just going to be so limited on deep sky, though, right? Uh, uh. I carefully compared them with Meopta’s excellent Meostar HD 12x50s by looking for the faintest stars I could see in both the Pleiades and Orion’s sword. In both cases, the Meopta’s went deeper with the Canon’s IS off (though not by as much as I was expecting). But press the magic button and the 12x36 went every bit as deep, maybe … and here’s the thing … deeper."

"The 12x36s show more detail on the Moon than about any other hand-held binoculars I can think of (except the Canon 18x50s!) In some ways, these show you more than premium 12x50 or even 15x56 birding/hunting binoculars, such as Leica’s 12x50 HDs or Zeiss’ Conquest 15x56 HDs. Resolution is way better, but so too is contrast. Mainly this is because the view is so much less jiggly, but don’t discount the effect of the extremely sharp and high-res porro-prism optics."

"A few days later, I easily resolved the bright-rayed 27 km crater Menelaus. And unlike normal handhelds, I didn’t need careful breathing to do it. Honestly, the clarity and detail astonished me. To be clear: the available detail was much more than with even the highest powered hand-held, non-IS binoculars, and felt like much more than just 12x."

Canon 12x36 ISIII Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

 

[Will K]

Compare the Canon 12x36 IS III sometime with your NL 12x42 on astronomy. Even with the smaller aperture, they will go deeper into the night sky than your 12x42 NL. The Canon 12x36 IS III gives me the best view of the moon I have ever seen through hand held binoculars. It is remarkable how many craters you can see with the IS on.

Canon 12x36 ISIII Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

I would imagine that the NL12 on a tripod would give a similar effect, and perhaps with other bonuses. But I’ve not tried that myself, as yet. I’ve not purchased a bino adapter, but it’s on my to do list.

It’s always a treat to pick up an IS, however!

 

[Elpha8888]

Compare the Canon 12x36 IS III sometime with your NL 12x42 on astronomy. Even with the smaller aperture, they will go deeper into the night sky than your 12x42 NL. The Canon 12x36 IS III gives me the best view of the moon I have ever seen through hand held binoculars. It is remarkable how many craters you can see with the IS on.

"Focus ‘snap’ is probably the most absolute I’ve ever experienced in a binocular – optical quality is supreme (this is Canon, after all, makers of some of the finest camera lenses and the objectives for Takahashi telescopes)."

"Compared to a premium pair of 12x50 birding bino’s these are just going to be so limited on deep sky, though, right? Uh, uh. I carefully compared them with Meopta’s excellent Meostar HD 12x50s by looking for the faintest stars I could see in both the Pleiades and Orion’s sword. In both cases, the Meopta’s went deeper with the Canon’s IS off (though not by as much as I was expecting). But press the magic button and the 12x36 went every bit as deep, maybe … and here’s the thing … deeper."

"The 12x36s show more detail on the Moon than about any other hand-held binoculars I can think of (except the Canon 18x50s!) In some ways, these show you more than premium 12x50 or even 15x56 birding/hunting binoculars, such as Leica’s 12x50 HDs or Zeiss’ Conquest 15x56 HDs. Resolution is way better, but so too is contrast. Mainly this is because the view is so much less jiggly, but don’t discount the effect of the extremely sharp and high-res porro-prism optics."

"A few days later, I easily resolved the bright-rayed 27 km crater Menelaus. And unlike normal handhelds, I didn’t need careful breathing to do it. Honestly, the clarity and detail astonished me. To be clear: the available detail was much more than with even the highest powered hand-held, non-IS binoculars, and felt like much more than just 12x."

Canon 12x36 ISIII Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

Hi Dennis, I have been lucky enough to own the 12x36iii, 14x32, 10x42, 18x50 and currently have the 15x50.
In regards to astronomy I mount the 12x42 NL Pure and let me tell you imo that no Canon optically comes close to the NL Pure, I've spent hours looking at patches of the night sky with the Swarovski, the stars are perfect points like nothing I've ever seen before, the colours are vibrant and gorgeous and the resolution is mind-blowing, looking at Orion one night and trying to split the trapezium was fun. The AFOV is the cherry that gives an immersion into the heavens like I've not experienced before.
Where I feel the Canons shine is in the freedom to just point up and press the stabilizer. Yes they are excellent for moon observation, yes they show feint stars but so does the Swarovski mounted.
The 15x and 18x are a lot of fun and the extra mag is nice, the stabilization I feel gives the viewer also a sense of calmness which I really like.
There is a place for both but perfection lies in the Swarovski at night, it's whether you want the extra issues of mounting.
When I had the Canon 12x36 I also had the 8.5 el, I found the image rather dim in the Canons after looking through the Swarovski. It's important to have both binoculars next to each other as memory is not reliable in these situations.
Scope views-
"Curb your enthusiasm, Roger. But look, these give the most beautiful view ever for astronomy. No, they don’t have the reach of bigger apertures so you need averted vision more. No, they don’t have the hand-held resolution of stabilisers. Yes, they’re expensive. But the quality, the aesthetics of the view really are the finest I’ve yet experienced, the closest to a pair of premium apochromatic astro’ refractors. That’s the summary, all you really need to know for astronomy."

"My favourite ever binoculars. If you want to own just one pair that gives wonderful views of everything, but is light and easy to carry these are what I’d recommend"

 

[Dennis Mau]

Hi Dennis, I have been lucky enough to own the 12x36iii, 14x32, 10x42, 18x50 and currently have the 15x50.
In regards to astronomy I mount the 12x42 NL Pure and let me tell you imo that no Canon optically comes close to the NL Pure, I've spent hours looking at patches of the night sky with the Swarovski, the stars are perfect points like nothing I've ever seen before, the colours are vibrant and gorgeous and the resolution is mind-blowing, looking at Orion one night and trying to split the trapezium was fun. The AFOV is the cherry that gives an immersion into the heavens like I've not experienced before.
Where I feel the Canons shine is in the freedom to just point up and press the stabilizer. Yes they are excellent for moon observation, yes they show feint stars but so does the Swarovski mounted.
The 15x and 18x are a lot of fun and the extra mag is nice, the stabilization I feel gives the viewer also a sense of calmness which I really like.
There is a place for both but perfection lies in the Swarovski at night, it's whether you want the extra issues of mounting.
When I had the Canon 12x36 I also had the 8.5 el, I found the image rather dim in the Canons after looking through the Swarovski. It's important to have both binoculars next to each other as memory is not reliable in these situations.
Scope views-
"Curb your enthusiasm, Roger. But look, these give the most beautiful view ever for astronomy. No, they don’t have the reach of bigger apertures so you need averted vision more. No, they don’t have the hand-held resolution of stabilisers. Yes, they’re expensive. But the quality, the aesthetics of the view really are the finest I’ve yet experienced, the closest to a pair of premium apochromatic astro’ refractors. That’s the summary, all you really need to know for astronomy."

"My favourite ever binoculars. If you want to own just one pair that gives wonderful views of everything, but is light and easy to carry these are what I’d recommend"

I know the NL 12x42 would be good for astronomy mounted on a tripod, but if I am going to go through the trouble of putting something on a tripod it is going to be my 6-inch Dobsonian Telescope, and it will blow the NL out of the water! In my opinion, the advantages of binoculars are the convenience of hand holding them, so I never bother to mount one on a tripod. That is why I like the Canon 12x36 IS III so much for astronomy and birding. It gives me the detail and resolution of a mounted binocular, but it still has the convenience of a binocular. For $700 it shows you way more detail on the bird than the $3000 NL 12x42.

The optics on the Canon are not far behind the NL outside of FOV with their new spectral coatings. Canon makes the objective lenses for Takahashi Telescopes and some of the best cameras in the world, so they know as much about optics as Swarovski. I find I also get less glare with the Canon than I did with the NL, especially when the sun gets low. I don't even like to mount a telescope on a tripod. I like something you can carry outside, sit down on patio and start observing with.

That is why I bought the Vaonis Vespera. I carry it out to the patio set it down, and it does everything automatically including focusing, and it sends the stacked images to my phone. I sit in the house and observe the images on my cellphone! Here is a photo of the Orion Nebula I took with it.

Vespera II

Vespera II

vaonis.com

 

[Elpha8888]

I know the NL 12x42 would be good for astronomy mounted on a tripod, but if I am going to go through the trouble of putting something on a tripod it is going to be my 6-inch Dobsonian Telescope, and it will blow the NL out of the water! In my opinion, the advantages of binoculars are the convenience of hand holding them, so I never bother to mount one on a tripod. That is why I like the Canon 12x36 IS III so much for astronomy and birding. It gives me the detail and resolution of a mounted binocular, but it still has the convenience of a binocular. For $700 it shows you way more detail on the bird than the $3000 NL 12x42.

The optics on the Canon are not far behind the NL outside of FOV with their new spectral coatings. Canon makes the objective lenses for Takahashi Telescopes and some of the best cameras in the world, so they know as much about optics as Swarovski. I find I also get less glare with the Canon than I did with the NL, especially when the sun gets low. I don't even like to mount a telescope on a tripod. I like something you can carry outside, sit down on patio and start observing with.

That is why I bought the Vaonis Vespera. I carry it out to the patio set it down, and it does everything automatically including focusing, and it sends the stacked images to my phone. I sit in the house and observe the images on my cellphone! Here is a photo of the Orion Nebula I took with it.View attachment 1510573

Vespera II

Vespera II

vaonis.com

Hi Dennis, I'm in agreement with you about the detail seen, the stabilizer is magical and I'm often left in amazement when looking through my 15x Canons during the day, that's why I have both, the NL predominantly being used at night.
Ive often thought about telescopes but really the binocular rabbit hole is big enough for me, there is something magical about using two eyes and the convenience of a binocular, by the way I don't use a tripod for the NL pure, I use a simple magic arm, it's so convenient and I can use it in lots of places including the car.
I do really like Canon glass, however I have found across the board that most models do have a fair amount of color fringing and the 12x36iii sample probably had the worst, still it was pleasant on the night sky, if a little dim.

That Vanos looks interesting, you can drink ur coco while space hopping!! The image is also stellar, I will have to look into how that works.

Still imo you won't get the same pleasure as you do while looking through the NL Pure, that huge 12x view and the way it frames the night sky is mesmerizing, only bested by the Nikon WX!I

I also have dabbled with taking images through the Pure, I can achieve the same scale image as yours with digital zoom through the binocular and I'm happy with the results, however I want to stack the images, that is something I need to learn and I think the potential is there to get amazing photos like your Vanos, the downfall is it would require a lot more work and patience.

At the end of the day one has to weigh it up, yes binoculars have their limitations, but for me the simplicity and child like wonder that binoculars can exert on the viewer is everything I want, I'm going to keep exploring the night sky with my Swarovskis.
The Pleiades are devine through the Pure!
Enjoy your Coco!!

 

[Paultricounty]

I know the NL 12x42 would be good for astronomy mounted on a tripod, but if I am going to go through the trouble of putting something on a tripod it is going to be my 6-inch Dobsonian Telescope, and it will blow the NL out of the water! In my opinion, the advantages of binoculars are the convenience of hand holding them, so I never bother to mount one on a tripod. That is why I like the Canon 12x36 IS III so much for astronomy and birding. It gives me the detail and resolution of a mounted binocular, but it still has the convenience of a binocular. For $700 it shows you way more detail on the bird than the $3000 NL 12x42.

The optics on the Canon are not far behind the NL outside of FOV with their new spectral coatings. Canon makes the objective lenses for Takahashi Telescopes and some of the best cameras in the world, so they know as much about optics as Swarovski. I find I also get less glare with the Canon than I did with the NL, especially when the sun gets low. I don't even like to mount a telescope on a tripod. I like something you can carry outside, sit down on patio and start observing with.

That is why I bought the Vaonis Vespera. I carry it out to the patio set it down, and it does everything automatically including focusing, and it sends the stacked images to my phone. I sit in the house and observe the images on my cellphone! Here is a photo of the Orion Nebula I took with it.View attachment 1510573

Vespera II

Vespera II

vaonis.com

Finally I get to disagree with you 😝. I did a pretty thorough side by side using the Canon 10x42L (their best optics in IS) with a multitude of premium and upper mid level 10x42’s. We did two tests with the non IS bins, one handheld, the other on a tripod. Every premium non IS 10x42 was superior when on tripod. Even the upper mid level (where I place the L Canon IS) was at least as good when on a tripod. I have a light tripod set up with my 12x50 EL, I pick it up and walk right outside , as easy as grabbing just the binos, so no inconvenience there.

I’ve also had the pleasure of comparing the 12x36, 10x32 ( I think the 32 is best of the non L Canons IS) as well as the 15x50 and none are on the same level as the L version. I’ve found they all are a little dim, the CA is very apparent and they are not as sharp. These aren’t even close to being on the level of the NL or EL’s.

That’s a nice picture Dennis, who ever took that forgot the goats 🐐 🤣😂😜✌🏼.

Paul

 

[Dennis Mau]

Finally I get to disagree with you 😝. I did a pretty thorough side by side using the Canon 10x42L (their best optics in IS) with a multitude of premium and upper mid level 10x42’s. We did two tests with the non IS bins, one handheld, the other on a tripod. Every premium non IS 10x42 was superior when on tripod. Even the upper mid level (where I place the L Canon IS) was at least as good when on a tripod. I have a light tripod set up with my 12x50 EL, I pick it up and walk right outside , as easy as grabbing just the binos, so no inconvenience there.

I’ve also had the pleasure of comparing the 12x36, 10x32 ( I think the 32 is best of the non L Canons IS) as well as the 15x50 and none are on the same level as the L version. I’ve found they all are a little dim, the CA is very apparent and they are not as sharp. These aren’t even close to being on the level of the NL or EL’s.

That’s a nice picture Dennis, who ever took that forgot the goats 🐐 🤣😂😜✌🏼.

Paul

True, the Canon's aren't quite on the level of the NL or EL unstabilized, but as soon as you hit the IS button they leave them in the dust, and their resolution is at least 50% greater. Having a steady view, I have found, is way more important than CA, transmission, resolution or size of the FOV. How often do you go through the trouble to put your NL on a tripod, especially when birding? Do you carry a tripod with you in the field? I was sold on the NL 10x42 also until I compared them to the Canon 8x20 IS and found out the Canon could resolve way more detail on the bird than the NL. I took the picture, but the Vespera is kind of a robotic telescope, so it does everything for you. You just set it on the patio and tell it to do its thing! Here is the spiral galaxy.

 

[Elpha8888]

Can

True, the Canon's aren't quite on the level of the NL or EL unstabilized, but as soon as you hit the IS button they leave them in the dust, and their resolution is at least 50% greater. Having a steady view, I have found, is way more important than CA, transmission, resolution or size of the FOV. How often do you go through the trouble to put your NL on a tripod, especially when birding? Do you carry a tripod with you in the field? I was sold on the NL 10x42 also until I compared them to the Canon 8x20 IS and found out the Canon could resolve way more detail on the bird than the NL. I took the picture, but the Vespera is kind of a robotic telescope, so it does everything for you. You just set it on the patio and tell it to do its thing! Here is the spiral galaxy.View attachment 1510698

Dennis if it's possible in your neck of the woods can you get your machine to image Messier 13 please.

 

[Paultricounty]

True, the Canon's aren't quite on the level of the NL or EL unstabilized, but as soon as you hit the IS button they leave them in the dust, and their resolution is at least 50% greater. Having a steady view, I have found, is way more important than CA, transmission, resolution or size of the FOV. How often do you go through the trouble to put your NL on a tripod, especially when birding? Do you carry a tripod with you in the field? I was sold on the NL 10x42 also until I compared them to the Canon 8x20 IS and found out the Canon could resolve way more detail on the bird than the NL. I took the picture, but the Vespera is kind of a robotic telescope, so it does everything for you. You just set it on the patio and tell it to do its thing! Here is the spiral galaxy.View attachment 1510698

I’m just not crazy about the overall image quality of the Canon IS ( other than the L). I’m very spoiled with that sharp , bright wow factor of the premium options from the big three, and the Nikon EDG.

I don’t ususly take a tripod when birding, unless I’m going to be stationary, at that point nothing beats an NL, EL or a Noctivid on a tripod or even a mono pod. If hiking up a slippery mountain wet from waterfall spray , not taking the 10x32 IS either.

Of course we’re all individually different , at different points in our lives, with different physical limitations and that has an immense effect on what we choose and what we like the most.

Are you sure you took that picture? I would’ve sworn I seen that exact picture somewhere else 🤔🤪✌🏼.

Paul

 

[Dennis Mau]

I’m just not crazy about the overall image quality of the Canon IS ( other than the L). I’m very spoiled with that sharp , bright wow factor of the premium options from the big three, and the Nikon EDG.

I don’t ususly take a tripod when birding, unless I’m going to be stationary, at that point nothing beats an NL, EL or a Noctivid on a tripod or even a mono pod. If hiking up a slippery mountain wet from waterfall spray , not taking the 10x32 IS either.

Of course we’re all individually different , at different points in our lives, with different physical limitations and that has an immense effect on what we choose and what we like the most.

Are you sure you took that picture? I would’ve sworn I seen that exact picture somewhere else 🤔🤪✌🏼.

Paul

I did post the picture on Facebook. You may have seen it there. I understand about the images of the alpha's being better than the Canon, but IS will really spoil you when you are used to it, and then you go back to a regular binocular, and you realize just how much you are shaking. It is nice to relax and just enjoy the image of the bird without it being spoiled by shaking. It is too bad Nikon doesn't make an IS binocular. How about an EDG with IS. Nikon makes IS cameras, so they have the technology to do it. They would blow an NL or SF out of the water.

If Nikon had perfected the EDG it would easily be the best binocular made. They know as much or more about optics as Swarovski does. Just look at the Nikon WX. It is the best binocular ever made. Nothing Swarovski or Zeiss makes can match it. It is not that complicated to build an IS binocular. Look at how simple the Canon 8x20 IS and 10x20 IS are, and they are only $500 and weigh only 15 oz. Try one if you haven't, and you will be amazed how good they are.

By the way, when you said there was a Nikon SE 8x32 on eBay, I put a bid in on it and bought it. I really forgot how good the SE is. I used to think the E2 was better, but I don't think so. The SE has much sharper edges and better contrast, and just an excellent stereoscopic view because of the widely spaced objectives. The SE has better build quality than the E2 also. It is a sweet little porro and quite light at 22 oz. I have no problem with the eye cups or blackouts, as some people do. The SE is like new. Not a mark on it. It has the preferred leaded glass also instead of the newer ecoglass, so it has less CA also. There is a like new Nikon SE 8x32 on eBay right now for $729.00 or BO.

Nikon Premier 8x32SE Superior E binoculars LNIB with papers 18208073818 | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Nikon Premier 8x32SE Superior E binoculars LNIB with papers at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

Nikon Premier SE 8x32 Binocular | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Nikon Premier SE 8x32 Binocular at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

 

[Dennis Mau]

Can

Dennis if it's possible in your neck of the woods can you get your machine to image Messier 13 please.

Here it is. M13 or the Hercules Cluster is a gorgeous Globular Cluster. Probably the best one.

 

[tenex]

Here is the spiral galaxy.

I just love the spiral galaxy. Sometimes I even wish there were more of them.

Does Vespera filter out satellites? And what is that reddish band across the top of both photos?

 

[Dennis Mau]

I just love the spiral galaxy. Sometimes I even wish there were more of them.

Does Vespera filter out satellites? And what is that reddish band across the top of both photos?

The reddish band is probably an artifact for some reason. These are just JPEGs straight from the scope. I could post process them if I wanted to in something like Adobe Lightroom and greatly increase the quality of the image. Most people do. No, a lot of people photograph satellites. If you happen to get one in your photo while stacking, you could remove it if you didn't want it. These images were created with about a 1/2 hour of stacking. So not long really from Bortle 6 city skies.

 

[Elpha8888]

Here it is. M13 or the Hercules Cluster is a gorgeous Globular Cluster. Probably the best one.View attachment 1510778

Thanks Dennis, that's amazing. It's next on my list to view, although you can probably catch it in 10x the more mag the better. Reckon 15x and upwards.

 

[Scott98]

also check out M3 and M53 which are both well-placed near the bright red star Arcturus around the zenith right now. M13 in Hercules is more of a summer object and doesn't come up till later at night in the spring. Both look good in my 10x56. M53 has a little buddy globular near it NGC 5053 which is also visible in the 10x56.

https://freestarcharts.com/images/Articles/Messier/M3_M53_M64_Finder_Chart.jpg

btw if astronomers are staging a takeover of this site count me in!

 

[Dennis Mau]

also check out M3 and M53 which are both well-placed near the bright red star Arcturus around the zenith right now. M13 in Hercules is more of a summer object and doesn't come up till later at night in the spring. Both look good in my 10x56. M53 has a little buddy globular near it NGC 5053 which is also visible in the 10x56.

https://freestarcharts.com/images/Articles/Messier/M3_M53_M64_Finder_Chart.jpg

btw if astronomers are staging a takeover of this site count me in!

I will photograph them next clear night I have.

 

[Patudo]

To the OP - I was able to do this last year at the Global Birdfair near Rutland, UK - Swarovski had all three x42 NLs available for viewing (plus the x32s but I didn't try those) and for reference binoculars I had my brother's 8.5 Fieldpro and my own 10x42 Nikon SE. I've used both binoculars quite a bit so they were a good reference point. (NB. I didn't try the "Legend" series ELs with the long short focus, but my brother did, and reported no difference between the display units and his Fieldpro, apart from the short focus obviously.)

Purely in terms of what you see when you look through them, I found the NLs and my brother's Fieldpro to be very similar - excellent centre and edge sharpness (although conditions were not ideal - a very hot bright day generated a lot of heat haze which made my favourite tests - detail at distance - difficult to do; for UK readers, the current venue is far inferior from the point of view of testing optics, as well as actually seeing birds, than the old spot by the reservoir). Brightness seemed identical, at least under those conditions. It looked to me like the signature Swarovski image expanded by whatever factor the NL's extra field of view gives you, which for what it's worth is immediately apparent and impressive. The main difference to my eyes was that the colour rendition of the NL image was slightly different - a little warmer you could say. Maybe Swarovski responded to those who found the EL image a little cool. It's not a big difference, but you notice it when going from one to another (and in my case adjusting to it about 30 seconds later).

The other aspect isn't truly optical, I guess, but as kabsetz once said (I paraphrase) shake/jitter/wobble is the worst aberration. I almost hate to admit it, because the NL headrest looks and feels gimmicky but ... for the viewing I do it did make a difference. Not to IS levels of course, but very roughly speaking, almost halfway there (Typo's/kabsetz's resolution tests comparing binoculars with and without IS would be really interesting to do with a NL with and without the headrest... has anyone attempted this?). It's a clever idea and someone ought to do something along the same lines.

You didn't ask about the ergonomics/usability so I won't dwell on that.

I think my favourite of the x42 NLs is the 10x - the extra punch of the 12x is attractive (especially as I use 12x a fair amount), but I think the 10x42 plus headrest gives you 10x magnification and a field of view comparable to that of the old Zeiss standard (130m/1000m) with the stability of an 8x. I liked the 8x a lot too, but prefer my targets to be a little bigger at the typical distances I'm viewing over. Outstanding binocular if you can afford them. Just as well they don't make a 10x50 or 12x50...

 

[dries1]

The reddish band is probably an artifact for some reason. These are just JPEGs straight from the scope. I could post process them if I wanted to in something like Adobe Lightroom and greatly increase the quality of the image. Most people do. No, a lot of people photograph satellites. If you happen to get one in your photo while stacking, you could remove it if you didn't want it. These images were created with about a 1/2 hour of stacking. So not long really from Bortle 6 city skies.

Dennis,
What was the magnification used in the image of M13?

 

[hopster]

Exactly. I noticed that right off with the NL. It is better than even the SF. It is like there is no glass in the binocular. It is at another level. The transparency is better than any other binocular I have tried.

Better than the Noctivid? In 8x I think the NL is behind and the SF further behind in terms of how tangible and natural the image is, in particular the colours and subtle contrasts. I would say the Zeiss HT is actually closest.